The evidence on man-caused Global Warming is
overwhelmingly against the hypothesis

There is a little noticed factor in this spaceref.com
report on the now three red spots on Jupiter. It reports increased energy
involved in maintaining and growing the red spots. That energy has to come
from somewhere. And we didn't do it.

(Equal time segment) We certainly did do it. Everybody
knows about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. And they also know that a
butterfly in the Midwest flapping its wings can set off a cyclone in Asia.
That's exactly what we see here. We sent satellites to the planet. We
observed it. That changed it. And the butterfly effect set in.

{O,o} Feeling crazed tonight - but not crazed enough
to fail to wish you a solid recovery. My strategy with my ear and other
problems has been, "Listen to your body. Do a little more today than you did
yesterday as long as it does not hurt. As soon as it hurts stop and rest."
And by hurt I mean the early hurt, not the hurt that comes from extreme
exercise. By a little more I mean a very little more. And accept that there
will be days when a little more is too much. Be willing to accept that and
plan to work back up. Set small goals that are not hard to reach and work
towards them. Reset the goals a little further. Lather, rinse, repeat.
(You'll know when to stop the iteration.

{^_-})

Well I may have overdone the exercise today but I'm
sure I'll be all right...

===========

An Exchange on the Texas Child Kidnapping (in
Another Conference).

It began when I said:

This is clearly a case of tyranny, but it is Texas business, I think.

I have a novel in process in which an 11 year old girl is abused by Child
Protective Services. It turns out she has adequate resources to destroy the
city, and a lot of reasons to use them...

A conference member said:

Jerry, do you remember L. Sprague De Camp's story "Judgement
Day?" A man who has been picked on all his life discovers a process, that if
misused, will blow up the world, and kill everybody. He decides to release
it.

Sprague De Camp said it was autobiographical. I
suspect many list members would understand how he felt.

I replied:

Indeed. Haven't thought about that one for a while.
Sprague always did feel put upon by the world, but objectively it doesn't
look as if he and Catharine had that bad a life.

One of his stories about the world crashing in on
him involved the Scientologists and "A Sending of Cats". The problem was
that the story was hilarious if it wasn't happening to you...

Sprague had nasty things to say about Scientology.
A local Pennsylvania chapter decided to take action against him. They
advertised in the local papers that a professor needed cats for psychology
experiments, and one need only bring the cat to an address (Sprague and
Catherine's); if no one was home, put the cat into the fenced yard and all
would be well.

Catherine called it "A sending of cats". Apparently
about 20 showed up. The problem was keeping a straight face while listening
to her tell the story....

Jerry Pournelle Chaos Manor

==========

John Phillip Sousa on copyright

Jerry,

I did a quick search of your site and didn't see a
mention of it, so I thought I would call your attention to an interesting
article by John Phillip Sousa from 1906. You can read it at
http://www.phonozoic.net/n0155.htm.

"The Menace of Mechanical Music" is a two part
discussion of the effects of mechanical reproduction on amateur music
appreciation and on the rights of composers. As a member of a community
band, I can appreciate the persuasiveness of the first part, but I think you
will be cheering the second half.

The last paragraph is right up your alley - I heard
echos of the SFWA vs. EFF discussion:

"Do they not realize that if the accredited composers,
who have come into vogue by reason of merit and labor, are refused a just
reward for their efforts, a condition is almost sure to arise where all
incentive to further creative work is lacking, and compositions will no
longer flow from their pens; or where they will be compelled to refrain from
publishing their compositions at all, and control them in manuscript? What,
then, of the playing and talking machines?"

Regards, Richard Clark

==========

Behold, the feverish expostulations of the modern
intelligence bureaucrat.

I would like to remind you that when you do Marmalukes
that will be a completely good excuse for not getting other things done. Is
Marmalukes a story about a team of very large dogs?

R Hunt

Hurrah.

Actually Mamelukes is a story about Janissaries,
which was a story about US soldiers kidnapped by a flying saucer, and put
down on -- oh, to heck with it.

The Mamelukes were slave soldiers who took over the
government, and then imported more of their Circassian brethren as slave
soldiers to consolidate their regime. It lasted until overthrown by Selim I,
father of Suleiman the Magnificent (and grandfather of Selim II better known
as Selim the Sot), was more or less resurrected after Selim the Sot, and was
not finally overthrown until Napoleon.

My story has Janissaries and Mamelukes, but it
isn't about dogs...

===========

Letter from England

We spent the holiday weekend walking in the Lake
District. I'll have some pictures up on my blog later in the week.

The British have fallen out of love with Gordon Brown.
All UK businesses and citizens with money rely on the UK Government not
changing the tax rules and regulatory environment too drastically in their
long-term planning. Gordon Brown has a well-deserved reputation for moving
the goal posts, sometimes even introducing tax changes retrospectively to
apply to prior years. The latest pair of gaffes were the elimination of the
10 pence on the pound tax band, so everyone now starts at the 20 pence
level, and a doubling of the tax on older cars--guess who drives older cars.
The British now have the measure of Mr. Gordon Brown, and there is very
little he can now do to change their opinion. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3997315.ece>
<http://tinyurl.com/53ezmq > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7416223.stm>
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3994832.ece> <http://tinyurl.com/5y8xxa
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/26/ gordonbrown.jackstraw>
<http://tinyurl.com/3ravhw> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/25/economics.labour>
<http://tinyurl.com/6aotwj > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/25/gordonbrown.labour
> <http://tinyurl.com/6r3n8l>

The Bologna Agreement to standardise on comparable
university degrees in the EU defines two educational cycles: the
undergraduate cycle and the graduate cycle. The undergraduate cycle gives
access to the graduate cycle, and the graduate cycle gives access to
doctoral studies and provides a professional qualification in many fields
(for example, medicine or engineering). Theoretically, the two cycles total
at least five years. Why does this matter? Because in England the standard
undergraduate degree is a three-year degree, and the standard graduate
degree is a one-year masters. With those points in mind, you might read the
following article: <http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=401984&c=2
> <http://tinyurl.com/4jaufa>

"Thanks to the Internet, the word has gotten
around that, no matter how U.S. troops are dressed, they are very
badass. Even pro-terrorist propagandists no longer try to peddle the
"cowardly American soldier" line. It just doesn't play, because too many
Iraqis and Afghans have gotten online and described personal experiences
fighting alongside, or even against, U.S. troops, or just witnessing it.
The general message is, you do not want to mess with the Americans in
full battle-rattle."

When I joined the Army, lo these many years ago, I was
told that our job was to be scary enough that any potential foes of the
United States would decide the price was too high, and not to try anything.
As we shifted foes from the stereotypical chess playing Russians to Islamic
Terrorists, this worried me. How do you intimidate those who say they are
willing to die, and who regularly demonstrate that trait? Well, turns out
that the old methods do work, it just takes a little longer to train them.

Take care of yourself. It sounds like you over did it
a little Monday.

{^_^}

I think I did. Thanks

==========

Mark Lowenthal and 9/11

Jerry,

While Mark Lowenthal makes many good points regarding
the limits of intelligence gathering and analysis as well as the fact that
it has become politicized, I believe that he has completely missed the mark
regarding the connecting of the dots prior to 9/11.

The FBI chose not to seek a search warrant for
Moussaoui's computer in August. Earlier the FBI had received at least one
report from one of its agents regarding an Arab taking flight school lessons
for piloting jet liners. It was also known that Moussaoui was taking flight
lessons. Later questioning of the fight school instructors revealed that
their Arab students were not interested in learning to take off or land jet
liners, merely how to pilot them when aloft.

Any reasonably intelligent person would have regarded
these activities highly suspicious and would realize that some plot might be
afoot using jet liners. At the very least, airport security should have been
tightened. How many of us poor unwashed proles realized that it was possible
to take sharp weapons such as box cutters through airport security without
question.

It is true that most rational people would not engage
in a plan, terrorist or otherwise, that offered no hope of survival. After
watching years of suicide bombings in Israel and India it is obvious that
there are many irrational people willing to die for what we in the West
would consider dubious causes.

The dots were there. Our intelligence agencies not
only failed to connect them, they essentially made no effort.

Robert Holmes

==

Re Intelligence - and WaPo

I note they are carefully not noting that our
intelligence community connected the dots regarding Iran and nobody
listened. That led to politicizing of a tiny piece of the conclusions about
the Iranian nuclear program, a sound bite as it were, without noting the
body which indicated nuclear development continued on the dual use civilian
portion.

When the intelligence community DOES connect the dots
and nobody listens is that any better than when they fail to connect the
dots?

Wonder of wonders, the site now includes "The Elliott
Oscillating Reactionless Drive (EORD) (Or how to make a Dean Drive work)".
Lots of pretty diagrams. When it comes to solid math . . . well: "Naturally
I do not expect that you accept my pretty diagrams without a fight, a lot
can be argued concerning the forces and velocities, I will not publish a
detailed vector analysis in this post because I promised a FUN demonstration
(nobody would read it anyway). [I would. I bet Dr Cochran would too.]

"Therefore I will give you detailed instructions on
how to construct and test a working oscillating reactionless drive (of the
Elliott type)."

The detailed instruction amount to "Get a Lego set and
build it yourself."

The last heading in the article was "Building a
working model". The only entry was "Coming soon."

Sharia law in any form is utterly
unacceptable as a replacement for US law. It should in no way ever
supplant US law. UC Irvine should lose funding and accreditation over
this. This is intolerable.

{^_^}

==========

I currently Chair the Academic Senate Council on
Student Experience at UCI. Our Council is very attuned to such issues. We
have heard quite a bit about allegations from both pro-Israel and
pro-Palestine factions about which is being mistreated by the other. Such
allegations were investigated by the U.S. Office for Civil Rights and found
to be baseless.

Chancellor Drake has stated categorically that UCI
will be a bastion of free speech, but that inappropriate actions by any
party will not be tolerated. The blog article alleges actions, together with
lack of action, by UCIPD (but no one else in the media or on campus seems
aware of such actions). Worse, Jdow jumps to the irrational conclusion that
UCI was and is subject to Sharia law (how nonsensical is that?). I can
assure you that if such were the case, no one would be yelling longer or
louder than I would.

sincerely yours,

Bruce Blumberg, Ph.D.

I am pleased to hear it. As you note, you can find
anything on the Internet; and I am well aware that Joanne Dow is, shall we
say, more sensitive than most on this subject.

Alas, we have got to a point in these United States
where one cannot simply laugh off such accusations. Things now happen on
campuses in and out of California that even a decade ago would have been
simply impossible, not to say unthinkable.

And while UC Irvine may be free of such nonsense, I
discern from our letters from England that worse can happen in older
institutions than ours.

But again, I am pleased to hear things are not so
bad here. (And see below)

Reading Dr Dyson's thoughts on matters has always been
worthwhile but I fear he has gone daft with his remarks on what he rightly
calls "a worldwide secular religion." Contrary to what he says, the ethics
of environmentalism are not fundamentally sound. What nonsense it is to say
that "ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful
preservation of birds and butterflies is good." It is nonsense because, as a
guideline for behaviour it is amorphous, vague and indeterminate. What is
"ruthless destruction"? The phrase evokes images of wicked capitalists
cackling evilly, rubbing their hands together, as they plan to pave over a
pristine forest just for the pleasure of committing so nefarious an act. Is
destruction of habitat to clear an area for the construction of a power
plant "evil?" Is a farmer being "ruthless" when he clears land for a field?
I could continue in this vein, but this "religion" falls apart under even
rudimentary consideration.

Environmentalism is the religion for the intellectual
classes. It holds great appeal for guilt-ridden Obama supporters whose
penance for committing the environmental sin of buying an SUV is to burden
themselves with the task of forcing others, far less affluent than they are,
to go "green."

Oleg Panczenko

Well now, I wouldn't quite say that... What Freeman
Dyson is doing is paying tribute to the generalized "don't be beastly"
philosophy of the Enlightenment. I agree there's not a lot of philosophical
stuffing underneath that. Yet it seems intuitive that we ought not be
beastly to the animals, and that a pristine wilderness is more attractive to
more people than a polluted waste heap. (Of course archeologists love to
find a kitchen midden.)

In any event, one need one subscribe to Dyson's
generalized enlightenment secular religion to appreciate his logic on other
matters.

==

Am I the only one that finds this a bit unsettling?

Dr. P,

I read Freeman Dyson’s “review”, and I’ll keep most of
what I thought about that out of this. There was one thing in particular
though that grabbed my attention:

“Carbon-eating trees could convert most of
the carbon that they absorb from the atmosphere into some chemically
stable form and bury it underground. Or they could convert the carbon
into liquid fuels and other useful chemicals. Biotechnology is
enormously powerful, capable of burying or transforming any molecule of
carbon dioxide that comes into its grasp. Keeling's wiggles prove that a
big fraction of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes within the
grasp of biotechnology every decade. If one quarter of the world's
forests were replanted with carbon-eating varieties of the same species,
the forests would be preserved as ecological resources and as habitats
for wildlife, and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be reduced
by half in about fifty years.”

I’m not one of those scared by “Frankenfoods” or most
products of genetic engineering; something I should get out in the open so
you understand that I am not easily frightened by this sort of thing. That
said, the concept of replanting large swathes of the Earth with trees that
don’t behave like trees evolved to do bothers me some.

I don’t know if they’d take over, but enough of them
could push the CO2 concentration low enough to cause some sort of trouble if
they were successful and really effective. Plants need CO2, so removing too
much of it can’t be a good thing. Biologists can feel free to correct me on
that, but it was my gut reaction to this whole idea.

That sort of biotech would be well-intentioned, and we
know what road is paved in that fashion. Freeman Dyson is undoubtedly much
cleverer than I, but the tree idea on that scale seems a bit too clever to
me.

Steve.

I think you have gone beyond his point, but I
understand your concerns. Me, I wouldn't plant a lot of such trees until I
had some handle on control; but then I have always said we first need to
understand the situation before we start looking for remedies.

I think Dyson's main point was that we ought to be
looking for technologies to use in case things go badly, not that we ought
to rush out to Do Something Now.

=========

Flex fuel?

Concerning Flex Fuel vehicles, perhaps my own
experience would be helpful in explaining the problem. My experience began
in the mid 1960's with propane fuel systems used by a farm company for which
I worked. My experience with propane systems reveled that propane has less
energy content than gasoline. This could be compensated for by increasing
the compression ratio of the engine to take advantage of the much higher
octane rating of Propane (105 octane or better). The engines running
Methanol/Ethanol can also run much higher compression which helps to
compensate for the lack of energy content in the alcohol. Alcohol still
can't begin to compete with clean, electronic, diesel engines running diesel
fuel when it comes to efficiency. Unfortunately, there appears to be an
inequity when it comes to trucks owned by corporations and the trucks owned
by people with Mexican surnames. The latter regularly spill out vast
quantities of smoke. I suppose this will bring howls of protest. This has
been, however my observation. Gasification of coal might be viable at some
time in the future, though it is quite expensive, and is also of a lower
energy content, as is natural gas.

Jim Cook

==

Dear Jerry,

The problem with currently available FFVs is that they
are used by manufacturers as a way to lower their fleet averages for larger
vehicles. In other words, they are mostly trucks, SUVs and larger cars
which, of course, get lower gas mileage. Any particular FFV operating on gas
should get mileage no worse than the gas only variant of that model. If the
USPS bought vehicles that were larger than what they had previously used, of
course they got worse fuel mileage.

If we are going to go the FFV route, then we need FFV
Focuses and not just FFV Excursions.

Dave

==

The simple fact is that 10% ethanol put in place of
ether dropped the mass of the gasoline enought to lose about 5% to 8% MPG.
This raises ton mile pollution levels.

The Flex fuel thing is the result of Brazil mandating
GM and the other domestic manufacturers that E 85 and FLEX were "required"
to build cars in Brazil. Cheap labor and an integrated design to use all of
the cane sugar plant (begasse is the fuel for the alcohol plants located
close to the cane).

-- Allan Smalley P E

============

Subject: The Endless Frontier

Jerry,

I have recently picked up an old paperback called The
Endless Frontier that was edited by you. Your point of view has clearly been
stated several times in the book and it actually had me really excited about
the prospects that we Earthlings have and how close we are to seeing those
prospects. However, the book was first published in November of 1979. That
made me all of one and 5/6 years old at the time of print.

So my question to you is this: After some 30 years,
what are your point of views concerning the possibilities of space colonies?
As of this writing, "we" have just gotten new images from a newly landed
probe at the Mars polar cap. There has been GREAT discussion of which
direction NASA will be heading in the coming years. There is talk of China's
space program getting off the ground and possibly becoming a space giant
(Just rumors? Well, it's China, right? When have they ever failed to
surprise us?) We have a possible Commercial Space Port in New Mexico being
built. The list goes on and on and on.

Yet in reality, when it comes down to whether or not
we are living in space, it seems that we are WAY behind schedule. Political
hazards, as well as economical hazards, continue to hold us back. In the
book, the general view of most of the authors, as well as the editor, was
that we should have made substantial progress toward space colonies and be
well on our way to the next step by the end of the 1990s. We are at the end
of the next decade and the only talk I hear that actually sounds likely to
happen is the United States dropping the ISS and heading in another
direction. Several statements state several different directions and
everyone's opinion differs. With the state of the economy we are in, will
the United States even have a space program in 20 years?

And what about our resources? Fuel prices continue to
rise and the world continues to pay them with the exception of very few
smaller countries turning completely to alternative sources. Every other
year there is talk about using hydrogen powered vehicles, soy powered
vehicles, electric powered vehicles, or even hybrids. Well, the hybrids are
getting more popular in the United States, but really, why are we being held
back so much? Well, the answer to that is more complicated and political
than either of us would even want to bother to get into, but the point
remains that we are stuck in a rut and it will be some time before we get
out of this one. With as many resources available as space could provide,
why is no one looking up? It seems that instead, we will just complain about
the prices and point figures at those we dislike.

Substantial progress has been made as far as our space
exploration goes, but my questions are these: Are we really where we should
be? If not, what's been holding us back? And most importantly, are these
barriers going to keep us trapped on this planet until mankind obliterates
itself, either through poisoning the planet in almost every way that we can
imagine (and even some that we can't), or consuming our resources until we
end up with a real resource problem, or even through our political/religious
wars that continue to kill thousands of humans every year?

On a closing note, I've been reading Pournelle and
Niven for years. There just doesn't seem any way possible to say what a
difference you both have made, not just to me, but to the entire SF
community.

Thanks for all the writings.

Jared Glasshoff

We're working on getting Endless Frontier back in
print. Alas, since it came out, not much did happen; the book is still
pretty current in terms of what needs to be done. As to what's holding us
back, I have been writing about that for a long time. Mostly what is holding
us back is political greed and
Pournelle's
Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

I have said often what it would take to get us into
space. One
such was here. Of course that is only good for the country, not for the
election of public officials.

==========

The real reason why Bill Clinton should have been
Impeached

A large part of America's energy dependence on foreign
sources can be traced to Sept. 18, 1996, when President Bill Clinton stood
on the edge of the Grand Canyon on the Arizona side and signed an executive
proclamation making 1.7 million acres of Utah a new national monument.

Why would he dedicate a Utah monument while standing
in Arizona? Well, this federal land grab was done without any consultation
with the governor of Utah or any member of the Utah congressional delegation
or any elected official in the state. The unfriendly Utah natives might have
spoiled his photo-op.

The state already had six national monuments, two
national recreation areas and all or part of five national forests.
Three-quarters of Utah already was in federal hands. Still, the land grab
was sold as a move to protect the environment. . . .

In fact, the declaration of 1.7 million Utah acres as
a national monument, thereby depriving an energy-starved U.S. up to 62
billion tons of environmentally safe low-sulfur coal worth $1.2 trillion and
able to be mined with minimal surface impact, was a political payoff to the
family of James Riady.

He's the son of Lippo Group owner Mochtar Riady. James
was found guilty of — and paid a multimillion dollar fine for — funneling
more than $1 million in illegal political contributions through Lippo Bank
into various American political campaigns, including Bill Clinton's
presidential run in 1992.

Clinton took off the world market the largest known
deposit of clean-burning coal. And who owned and controlled the
second-largest deposit in the world of this clean coal? The Indonesian Lippo
Group of James Riady. It is found and strip-mined on the Indonesian island
of Kalimantan.

The Utah reserve contains a kind of low-sulfur,
low-ash and therefore low-polluting coal that can be found in only a couple
of places in the world. It burns so cleanly that it meets the requirements
of the Clean Air Act without additional technology.

"The mother of all land grabs," Sen. Orrin Hatch,
R-Utah, said at the time. He has called what was designated as the Grande
Staircase of the Escalante National Monument the "Saudi Arabia of coal." . .
.

Rep. James Hansen, R-Utah, pointed out that a large
portion of the coal-rich Kaiparowits Plateau within the monument belonged to
the children of Utah. When Utah became a state in 1896, about 220,000 acres
were set aside for development, and a trust fund was created to collect and
hold all the revenues directly for the benefit of schools.

Margaret Bird, trust officer for the fund, said that
because the land will not be developed, the schools stand to lose as much as
$1 billion over the next 50 years.

===========

Changing times

Dear Jerry, I sincerely hope this reaches you and
finds you in good spirits with a fair amount of energy. This came the other
day and after reading the article about UC Irvine, I thought you might enjoy
it's lighter, though no less relevant vein. Darrell

Subject: Changing times

High School

1957 vs. 2007

Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls
into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car
and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and
never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized
students and teachers.

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after
school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up
buddies.
2007 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge
them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts
other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal.
Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2007 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for
ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car
and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college,
and becomes a successful businessman.
2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care
and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers
being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair
with psychologist.

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin
to school.
1957 - Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2007 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car
searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario: A foreign student fails high school English.
1957 - He goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2007 - His cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally
explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist.
ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and his English
teacher. English banned from core curriculum. He is given a diploma anyway.

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and
scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to
comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She
faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

Darrell

No comment. None at all...

==========

FLDS vs CPS

Dear Jerry:

We are all very glad to see from your reports that you
are definitely healing. Like almost everyone else, we support you doing what
you can, and don’t worry about what you can not do. Rest, heal, and grow
healthy again.

Fortunately for us, your mind was never affected. :)

So on the subject of the Texas CPS removing 400+
children from the FDLS compound, I am quite conflicted. I clearly see why
you might think the children were “kidnapped”, in so many words. But I also
do see that those children were in real, serious, and non-trivial danger
too.

Granted, the CPS here is Texas is often used by
vindictive spouses, lovers, and neighbors to plague perfectly innocent
people, they also do remove children from perfectly horrendous situations.
In other words, while CPS is without a doubt a perfect example of
Pournelle’s Iron Law, they also serve a necessary service.

In the case of the FLDS, there is no question at all
that the young girls were being raised to be the slaves of a clique of older
men; physically, mentally, socially, and sexually. The children’s mothers do
indeed love them. But they are incapable of protecting them.

It is not a simple matter of the parents having the
right to raise the children “as they see fit.” Children are not and should
not be treated as property, but rather under our law, must be considered as
independent beings, with inherent rights.

Granted, children are often treated like property, and
their rights re often subsumed or ignored. But in this case, I think CPS did
right, even if perhaps the right action in this case was also very
beneficial to the entrenched PowersThatBe at CPS.

So the question to you is, what would have been a
better or more appropriate action? All the other alternatives to removing
the children I can theorize have pretty bad results as well, at least from
the the point of view of giving those children a chance to grow up free from
the very real abuse they were subjected to.

-Paul

Of course you have mixed emotions. We all do.

But first, it is not at all clear to me that the
foster homes they hastily stuffed these kids into are less dangerous than
where they were. Sure: from your view -- and mine -- they are being
subordinated to a wild religious view unsupportable by our modern
intellectual enlightened lives. They are being taught that polygamy is
acceptable and glorious in the sight of God. And to leave them for another
two months in that environment -- to leave them long enough to actually
bring any charges and have trials -- is simply unacceptable.

And yet:

Polygamy has probably been with us a lot longer
than the state of Texas. As to what is a child, Roman boys were conscripted
into the Legions in the Republic at age 14, and at 16 could become
pater familias household heads. Roman matrons married soon after puberty:
typically at 14. Female maturity at puberty was the standard for humanity
for a long time; and I would bet that most of my readers have, within a
couple of generations, a 15 year old mother in their ancestry. If you want
to think about dangers, think of 14 year old boys being told that it is
sweet and fitting to die for your country, and being sent off to learn use
of the gladius hispanicus. I would think that fairly dangerous. We don't do
that now; but you know, we did allow drummer boy recruits into the Union
Army, and we know of at least one 14 year old Minuteman in 1776.

As to the alternatives, what about showing there
was some damage to each child being removed? What about treating them as
individuals rather than treating them all at once? Many of them were
arbitrarily taken away for no reason and with no charge. Not only were
neither parents nor children confronted with their accusers, they were not
given any specifications or charges against them.

Punishing people without charging them with any
crime or allowing them any defense is a pretty serious thing. I would say
that protection from that kind of arbitrary authority is more important than
the alleged protection of no more than a dozen kids among the 400 from the
allegations of sexual abuse -- allegations, by the way, that now turn out to
have been made by an anonymous accuser who may not even exist. It may have
been a malicious neighbor.

If we are going to establish that precedent -- that
I can call the police and allege that you are abusing me and your children
-- and never come forward to confront you, or give any real specifications,
but they will come and take your children for their own protection, I have
the power to ruin your life.

Look up Titus Oates to find out why the Framers
were concerned about such matters.

Hard cases make bad law. This is a hard case. It
has a basic conflict between religious freedom and our desire to protect
children -- but then our justification for protecting children is based on
our concept of norm, and that is a RELIGIOUS BASED preference. What is the
non-religious justification for saying that girls should not marry at
puberty? That men ought not marry many women? That marriages ought or ought
not to be arranged by families? That children ought not be conscripted into
the Army at age 14?

Well, we have laws, and this is a republic.

To the extent that specific laws of the state of
Texas were broken, that should have been alleged and the individuals
charged; to the extent that there were real victims of real crimes, they
should have been "protected"; but to remove screaming children from their
mothers when it was never alleged that this particular child was in any
imminent danger of being abused is an arrogant abuse of authority on the
part of people who really don't believe in absolute right and wrong, but are
satisfied with what they are doing because they are that kind of people.

Hard cases make bad law, but in the case of a 4
year old child who is terrified because she has been taken from her mother
and put in a house of strangers, I don't even see a hard case unless you can
show that at least one 4 year old child was abused -- in the legal
definition of abuse -- in that church. And so far that has not even been
alleged. The allegations are mostly concerned with a few kids, particularly
some 16 year old mothers who must have conceived when they were 15 or
younger. Fine: if Texas had confined its attentions to girls between puberty
and legal marriage age, they would have a better case. They did not. They
took all the children, of all sexes, and sent them to -- foster homes.
To live with strangers.

But the authorities have spoken, and must not be
opposed. The children will remain with the foster homes. Incidentally,
statistics show that children in foster homes are more than twice as likely
to be abused as those in households with their natural parents. But it is
for us to obey. The authorities have spoken.

Jerry, Regarding the discussion over whether we should
mandate all new gasoline vehicles be built with FFV engines. As alcohol has
a higher octane rating than gasoline, I've been confused as to why postal
FFV vehicles would consume more oil (as E85) than the same vehicles with
regular engines - more fluid perhaps, because the gasoline has been diluted
with alcohol, but not more gasoline. An engine modified for FFV use might
have many changes in the fuel injection system and the computers, but the
compression ratio and the valve timing ought to be the same, resulting in
the same power when burning 100% gasoline.

At a party over the weekend, I talked to a postman and
got part of the answer. Their FFV vehicles with 200+ HP engines replaced
vehicles that had about 62 HP. The vehicles are also larger than the old
postal Jeeps, and being made largely of aluminum doesn't mitigate the fact
that they're carrying much larger loads, partly because other efficiencies
have resulted in each carrier delivering more mail daily. So we have a
larger vehicle carrying heavier loads and using more power to do it - not
exactly a fair comparison.

Hopefully someone out there will publish documentation
comparing the same vehicles (in the same role) using FFV & regular engines.
My thinking is that the FFV vehicles should reduce gasoline consumption by
nearly as much as they increase alcohol consumption. While this isn't an
ideal final solution, it should provide more "flexibility", and might ease
the demand for imported oil, particularly if we eliminate tariffs on
imported alcohol (for fuel).

I'm glad you're feeling better each day.

Take care of yourself & have fun,
Adrian in Phoenix

"The surest way to civil war is to begin
prosecuting policy differences as criminal. There is no faster way to
destroy a republic than to give the loser great fear of losing the
election." - Jerry Pournelle

==========

Subject: The monster and the sausages

From last Saturday:

>The pseudonymous Spengler has come up with the most
understandable overall explanation of the sub-prime mortgage mess I have yet
seen.

I've heard a marvelous and understandable explanation
from an improbable source: NPR / Chicago Public Radio, an episode of "This
American Life": (5/9/08) Episode 355 "The Giant Pool of Money"

Unfortunately, the one week period in which they offer
a free download has expired, but you can listen free if you can take
streaming audio, or buy a download for 95 cents or a CD for a few bucks.
About an hour long.

-- Cecil Rose

=========

"I'm happy they are being killed because their lives
are full of crime."

I'll try not to ramble, but this is a topic I feel
very strongly about.

As a former Texas State Licensed Foster Parent, I
thought I might add a little grist to the mill of what is probably happening
with the 400 kids in Texas.

First and foremost the primary goal of Texas CPS is
family reunification whenever possible. Of all of the kids my Wife and I
fostered, only 3 didn't go back to their parents, and 2 of those went to
Grandparents in another State. Most of the 400 will probably end up with
their Biological Mothers, once the DNA is sorted out, and the Mothers have
been through some parenting classes. Some of the 400 may not find landing
zones in their immediate family, but will be farmed out to aunts, uncles, or
grandparents. A few in all likelyhood will become wards of the state and
offered for adoption with a small percentage finishing their teen years in
the system.

CPS does not remove children from their homes on a
whim, frankly, there is probably more to the story than has been made
public. The sheer scope of trying to place 400+ kids into foster care is
beyond my comprehension, and I doubt that CPS would have tackled the job if
they didn't believe it was absolutely necessary for the kids' safety.

One of the difficult aspects of being a Foster Parent
is the public's mis-understanding of the role FP's play in the system. Many
people assume that Foster Parents are at best profiteers, at worst,
pedophiles and molesters. It is easy for the public to reach this
conclusion, for reasons of privacy, you will never hear or read about Foster
Parents doing the job they signed up for. The children and their biological
families privacy MUST be protected. The only time you will hear or read
about Foster Parents is when something bad happens, and for the very few
times things go wrong, thousands upon thousands of things go right. I don't
know any Foster Parents who ever made money, most of us took in as many as
we could afford to subsidize, and tried to balance between a job to make
sure the kids had appropriate food clothing and shelter, and some kind of
home life to spend time with the kids that also have a need for parental
love and guidance. Additionally, most of the kids are hurt and angry about
being taken away from their parents, so they will tend to paint a dismal
picture of life in a Foster Home. You state that "Incidentally, statistics
show that children in foster homes are more than twice as likely to be
abused as those in households with their natural parents." I am curious to
know your source, not disputing it, but curious nonetheless.

I am sure you don't mean to cast aspersions on Foster
Parents, but your essay about the 400 does not seem to take in to account
that the majority of these kids will spend a short time away from their
biological parents in well adjusted licenced Foster Homes with regular
Parental visits. Most will go back to their biological mothers. Some of them
will find the experience intolerable simply because any change to them will
be intolerable.

I'm glad to hear you are feeling better, I'm sure I
speak for everyone when I say please take the time to rest while you can.

Name Withheld by request

In other words, the kids improperly removed will
eventually be returned. We'll only partially disrupt their lives, so it's
all right? And the problem of finding places for 400 kids is not real and
there won't be compromises made, and all the places they are sent are safe,
so it's all right. If kidnappers are nice about it, then they won't really
traumatize 4 year old children?

I don't believe that and neither do you.

The fact remains that on their own reckoning the
only children in any immediate danger were the females past puberty but not
yet to legal age of consent. Precisely how many fit that description isn't
clear from the data I have, but it is surely fewer than 100 and probably a
lot fewer than that. So what is the justification for taking the other 300
other than to reduce the others to subjects and slaves? Against Child
Protective Services you have no rights whatever. This is the message to be
sent, and sent it was.

Now Texas may have better foster homes than most
states; but the statistics are not all that good for foster homes.

You seem happy because the children will not be
away from their parents for very long. What will they have learned during
that time? Patriotism? Love and appreciation for the rule of law? As to
"Regular Parental Visits" we have not seen much of that.

Additionally, most of the kids are hurt and angry
about being taken away from their parents, so they will tend to paint a
dismal picture of life in a Foster Home.

Gollies! Of course those kids are liars, and if
they knew what was good for them they'd praise the authorities who ripped
them from their mothers' arms?

Look: I know there are Foster Parents with good
intentions. There are also other kinds of foster parents. You wish to paint
a rosy picture of the foster parent situation, but there is evidence that
not all temporary foster homes are good places to be.

The fact remains that hundreds of children were
taken from their parents on the pretext that they were in immediate danger,
but no immediate danger has been specified. The only alleged danger to boys
is that they are turned out onto the streets at a tender age; and that, I
think is not an immediate threat under these circumstances. If the
authorities want to protect those children, offering them an opportunity to
leave the community should be sufficient. I suspect they wouldn't get any
takers, even among the boys of an age to be in danger of being turned out;
certainly not from the youngest boys who were also taken by force from their
mothers.

There is not even an allegation that girls under
the age of puberty are in any danger of molestation or abuse. None. Not even
the anonymous phone caller who made the initial charges made any such
accusation.

We have here punishment without allegation of
crimes; we have punishment without accusers; we have punishment without
confrontation of accusers or being aware of the charges; we have punishment
without trial. All this in the name of -- fair play?

Hard cases make bad law, but in many of these
individual situations there isn't even a hard case. it is guilt by
association and worse.

I am sure that you and a majority, perhaps the vast
majority, of foster parents are decent people who only want to help abused
children, and that in many cases intervention by the bureaucrats is
justified and helpful; but no matter the good intentions, we have here a
case of what can only be described as the nanny state gone tyrannically mad.

==

More Texas DFPS Commentary

Jerry :

I've watched the case over in Texas with a terrible
sense of foreboding. Not because I really think that the FLDS folks have
much of a basis for marrying off girls under the age of consent - consent in
this case being what their parent think. There's no basis in currently
accepted law for the practice. Whether or not that law is correct is a
separate and quite worthy debate, but let's not digress from the central
issue.

The basis in law for removal of children from their
parents requires a certain level of proof, and clearly verifiable proof at
that. To date, and to the best of my knowledge, no such proof have been
proffered to a court in Texas. A cellphone call that has no person acting to
confirm the call or to witness the call does not meet the burden of proof in
a court of law when applied to hundreds of people.

Back when I worked in arson / arson-homicide
investigations, we used to comment to each other, "It's not enough to do the
right thing, we must be seen to do the right thing at all times." In other
words, our conduct had to be wholly above reproach. No matter how "right" or
correct our actions were, we had to assume that every step, every comment,
every movement would be challenged in court, assailed as improper or even
malicious, and govern ourselves accordingly. Anything less than that simply
wasn't good enough because our actions could place a person in jail, ruin
their lives even if not convicted, or just scare the living bejeezus out of
some poor innocent soul.

We were supposed to be the best, and I, for one, damn'
well tried to meet that standard.

My foreboding on the case in Texas derived from the
wholesale removal of the children, conducted in a mass sweep basis, and done
without recourse to appeals in the short term. We're now, what, almost two
months after the seizure ? If the parents could have been allowed reasonable
appeal within, say, forty-eight hours of the seizure, it would have still
seemed excessive, but there would have been an obvious check-and-balance on
the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. They're supposed to
be the best, too, and they fell down in the traces pulling this wagon to
court.

Law enforcement and the related agencies (and let's
make no mistake here, DFPS falls into such category) have enormous
discretion in their actions. There will be cases where a warrant cannot be
obtained at the precise moment to capture a criminal, or where a decision
must be made at the split second to breach the privacy of a home or even to
use deadly force, and those cases are truly critical for the public safety.
Many many times, law enforcement and related agency officials make the right
judgment for the public safety and weal.

But the discretion to take a person's liberty for the
protection of the public safety comes with a grave responsibility to act in
a manner without reproach, above suspicion, and when shown that the wrong
decision was made, to step back and make matters as right as can be done for
the circumstances, without defensiveness or rancor, but a genuine sense of
remorse for having failed in that grave responsibility. Arguing minutia as
justifications, circling the wagons, or attacking those who are holding
officials to that standard only debases and degrades the rule of law, and
lends itself to further distrust of the law for the future.

It's obvious in this case that we're not going to see
proof offered to the courts, or such proof would have been shown with a
flourish from the earliest hearings, trumpeted from the rooftops, analysed
with all of the zeal of the modern CSI types' greatest enthusiasms. It's
obvious that the DFPS is trying desperately to unearth such proof, but
unlike the highly fictionalised Law&Order television show, this isn't a
script to play out over an hour including commercials. It's not a show
"ripped from the headlines" capped with a rhythmic "doink-doink" noise to
separate scenes. It's real life for these people.

And in real life, we expect law enforcement and
agencies with great powers to behave with the highest decorum and the
best-of-the-best standards because they are the bodies who draw from a
millennia old tradition, "...to bring about the rule of righteousness in the
land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should
not harm the weak... to further the well-being of mankind."

You say A cellphone call
that has no person acting to confirm the call or to witness the call does
not meet the burden of proof in a court of law when applied to hundreds of
people. In fact, the caller did not even allege
that boys or girls under the age of puberty were in any danger whatever.
Which did not stop the bureaucrats from tearing those children from the arms
of their mothers.

I would not say that much about this action
strengthens faith in the rule of law.

If we are determined to go to arbitrary power, I
would think we should be more careful about whom we give that power to.

==========

=========

Not just Texas

Every State has the equivalent of CPS, and most are
ran very poorly. Many years ago while living in FL my son had the misfortune
of falling at a daycare facility while climbing the ladder on a slide. His
leg became tangled in the rungs and he suffered a spiral fracture of his
femur. While in the hospital we were visited by the FL version of CPS. We
were told that since the accident did not happen at our home we would have
the privilege of keeping our son and that if the accident happen while he
was in our care the state would have automatically taken him away from us
for being unfit parents. Depending on case load at the court house it would
have taken us anywhere from 6 months to year to regain custody. With this
type of injury abuse is assumed and you are guilty until you prove yourself
innocence. As it was the daycare was forced to close due to the fines and
penalties imposed by the state. It was run by several nuns from our church
and operated as a service to parishioners and not for profit. My insurance
covered our sons medical expenses and there was no way that I would sue them
for an accident. As you have often said the Iron Law applies.

James

===========

Sharia Law and The University
of California at Irvine

I include the following in the interest of
fairness. What was originally sent to me was three times as long and I
pointed out that no one would read that; this was substituted. I am not
familiar with the situation at UC Irvine, and I do not spend much time with
Little Green Footballs.

Dr. Blumberg, I read your comment about my reactions
being an irrational conclusion.

Please see these links and comment on them. The
problem at UC Irvine appears to be of long standing and has resisted
correction. Note how Dr. Pipes was treated on your campus while Mohammedans
faced no such opposition for rather more harsh actions and speech. (Note
that I reserve "Muslim" for polite and nice people who are not advocating
death to others merely for being of different faiths. I do the same thing
for certain religious fundamentalists who call themselves Christians when
they are not.)

This is a lot of links for others to go through. I am
attempting to show a sense of the magnitude of the problem. Most of them are
from Charles Johnson, who has been following this at least as much as I
have. He is also a California taxpayer who is obviously displeased.

Enviously I feel your characterization of my reaction
to the report in Chaos Manor Mail was incorrect. And I feel your reaction
and that of Chancellor Drake are dreadful under-reactions.

It is fairly clear that there is a Muslim Student
Union at UCI and that it says many things that most of us would not accept.
I am not sure what the remedy is. The governance of student organizations at
American state supported universities has always been a thorny problem.

An obvious example is "holocaust denial", which is
a crime in many European countries (there are professors serving prison
sentences for questioning holocaust details). Are some subjects so
thoroughly "settled" that questioning them should be a crime? Is the Six
Million one of them? If so, what about Global Warming, which is also subject
to a consensus? But surely the two are not equal?

I would myself think that any hypothesis,
scientific or historical, can stand up to questioning; and that suppressing
people who raise such questions probably does not lead to better
understanding. Now of course some "questions" turn out to be mere
harassment, and aren't raised for purposes of finding truth; and some raise
more indignation than others.

Questioning the holocaust is one of the near
taboos. Asserting that 9/11 was actually a White House Conspiracy is
another. Questioning Human Caused Global Warming is now a third. The very
raising of such questions causes strong emotions and generates a desire to
fight, to suppress, to silence those who have the sheer nerve to deny the
obvious. Should we simply defer to such strong emotions in the interests of
peace?

But surely the MSU has strong emotions too.

As for me, I am glad I am not part of the
administration of UCI or any other state supported university; but if I have
to be, then I will take the side of rational discussion.

I did not say unregulated discussion. Surely there
can be some elementary rules for the presentation of views and evidence.

My mentor Stefan Possony used to say that one
either believes in rational discussion, and believes that among rational
people the truth or a good approximation to it will emerge in the free
exchange of ideas; or one does not. Count me in the camp with Possony and
John Stuart Mill on this question. There may be national emergencies in
which restrictions on free speech and freedom of assembly must be
suppressed; but I do not believe that we have reached such a state at the
University of California at Irvine.

Disagreement might generate more light, if not perhaps
less heat, were it organized according to Herman Kahn's typology:

1st-order agreement is agreement on substance.

2nd-order agreement is agreement about =what the
argument is about=. “If A and B have achieved it, either should be able to
explain it to C and each should be willing to accept the other’s
explanation.”

3rd-order agreement is “an understanding on why
second-order agreement cannot be achieved. … When third-order agreement is
reached, each party can explain satisfactorily to a third why his opponent
thinks the two cannot really come to grips on relevant issues and facts and
eventually achieve a second-order agreement.”

4th-order agreement is “the simple assertion by one or
both [parties] that the other is too stupid or biased for further discussion
to be worthwhile”.

Ref: _Can We Win in Vietnam?_, Praeger, 1968, pp. 3-4

Should not those arguing various conflicting
positions, on important matters such as Human-Caused Global Climate Change,
strive for something better than 4th-order agreement?

Rod Montgomery==monty@starfief.com

I can think of many subjects on which that is true,
but certainly in this instance.

Maybe the mainstream Muslims are as afraid of the
extremists as the rest of the world. However, I can also see the parallels
drawn between the behavior of the Nazis and extremist Muslims. I can
understand the argument that Germans who may have opposed the Nazi regime
still liked the benefits of Hilter's power. And, I can see that mainstream
Muslims are also enjoying the rise of the extremists. Let's face it, would
the Muslims around the world be receiving accommodations in England and the
US, for example, without the actions of the extremists? I'm not sure.

The US makes accommodations for lots of religious
communities. I guess it is the double-edge sword of democracy.

But, I am hardly a scholar on either subject.

I do know that the personal stories I read about WWII
(I am currently reading The Zookeepers' Wife-- the wife and her husband ran
the Warsaw zoo before the German invasion of Poland) speak much more to the
human condition and the travesties that the Nazis perpetrated on people
trying to live their lives. This is not to diminish the horror of the death
camps. Rather, the back stories like these illustrate what people endured
during the early rise of Hilter's power.

So, when Eboo Patel argues that the extremists, like
Al Qaeda and the Taliban, don't have the power the Nazis had, I think he is
ignoring how the rise to power begins.

But again, my husband will tell you, I am not the
strongest student of this portion of history.

Sue

What people say they will do is perhaps not as
important as what they actually do when they have the power to do it.

What are the laws and conditions where Moslems --
moderate or otherwise -- prevail? We know what the conditions were under the
Taliban. We know what the religious police do in Saudi Arabia. And we know
what some Muslim communities demand in the West, as in England, where they
do not rule but seek eventually to do so.

Bill Gates and other moguls go to Capitol Hill and
deplore alleged shortages of engineers and scientists, then they demand the
right to import an unlimited supply of foreign technology workers. It's a
rare event when any of these moguls pony up their own dough to pay for pure
science.

Our Congressmen give lip service to the importance of
encouraging youngsters to study science when the TV cameras are on, but once
they are turned off they cut funding and lay off scientists.

A young person who watches what they do instead of
what they say will soon realize that science is a profession with higher
risks and lower financial rewards than any other field that requires years
of postgraduate study.

It's especially ironic that the Department of Energy
is getting rid of its scientists when the nation is facing an energy crisis.

Our patricians are patronizing in only the most
negative sense of the word, with only a few rare exceptions.

Eric Krug

My science fiction stories written in the 70's and
80's had "Westinghouse University" and various other corporate institutions
of higher education as more important than the ones we revere now.

The irrational conclusion I referred to is the
statement that UCI has been, and continues to be subject to Sharia law. This
statement is more than irrational, it is ludicrous on its face. In addition,
the position apparently being espoused by JDow, and those responsible for
the various blogosphere articles, is that UCI is some sort of hotbed of
anti-Semitism. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anyone doubts
this, then simply visit the campus and spend some time here, instead of
accepting blog entries as reflections of reality. Previous allegations of
anti-Semitism have been thoroughly investigated by many parties and, to my
knowledge, were found to be baseless.

This does not mean that there is not a small group of
students who hold views that most would disagree with, or who make
statements that are highly objectionable, if not hate speech. Such people
exist. It does not mean that there is not a group of students who become
virtually apoplectic at the sight of a woman wearing a Hijab. Such people
exist. Chancellor Drake has reaffirmed that virtually all speech (even hate
speech) is protected under the First Amendment, and that UCI will not
intervene to prevent the exercise of such rights to free speech. Ironically,
it appears that the bloggers are arguing AGAINST free speech and they are
tireless in promoting their point of view.

More civil discourse, less obfuscation of the issues,
and less hatred (and hate speech) by everyone with deeply held views about
complex issues such as the Middle East would go a long way toward making
difficult problems solvable. It pains me as much as it does JDow to hear the
types of hate speech that are alleged to have been made. However, I would
feel vastly worse to know that our essential freedoms are being censored,
irrespective of the reason.

I continue to wonder why we do not simply put up a
prize: $10 billion to the first American owned company that beams down some
specified non-trivial amount of power from orbit for 90% of the time over a
year. It would cost nothing if the goal were not achieved, and if it were,
the technology gained would be worth the price. Prizes are cheaper than X
projects and if no one claims the prize there is no cost other than the
rather trivial costs of printing the offer and keeping track of claimants.
But in the case the claims would be obvious: you have to put a power plant
in space even to try to claim the prize.

This paper was given in June 2007. It is now almost
one year later. Is one year long enough to be of any value in checking his
predictions?

Do you think that it would be worth asking for
comments from your readers about this issue? That is, if you think that a
year is long enough to make at least a preliminary check on the predictions
in the article, perhaps you could ask for informed comments on whether the
data that has come in during the last year on anything relevant (sun
activity, temperature, whatever) is consistent with his predictions.

FrM

From my casual observations all his predictions
have come to pass, but I could be mistaken. Perhaps those who look more
carefully can comment.

==========

FFVs and Ethanol

Jerry, Here's a little more detail on the controversy
around Flex-fuel vehicles. The major incentive for carmakers to push FFV
technology into SUVs is the way fleet fuel economy is calculated under the
CAFE regulations. A 15 mpg SUV that is sold with FFV kit is counted against
the manufacturer's CAFE target not at 15 mpg, but at a much higher mpg based
on assumptions about how much petroleum gasoline, rather than total fuel, it
will burn. Thus an SUV effectively becomes a hybrid on paper, and the
company is relieved of the fine it would face if its fleet average fell
below the target. As fuel prices rise, however, this factor becomes less
important, and the entire loophole is being phased out under the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Ironically, the government's own mpg website,
www.fueleconomy.gov, shows
that the typical FFV delivers only 75% of the fuel economy on E85 that it
does on gasoline. So a trip that formerly required 100 gallons of gasoline
uses a quantity of E85 consisting of 113 gallons of ethanol and 20 gallons
of gasoline. Based on consensus figures for the energy return of US corn
ethanol production, making that 113 gallons of ethanol takes the energy
equivalent of 58 gallons of gasoline from various fossil fuels, mostly in
the form of the natural gas used to provide process heat and fertilizer,
plus some diesel for cultivation, harvesting and transportation. As a
result, the net fossil fuel savings attributable to E85 are less than one
quart per gallon of gasoline displaced.

Dr. Pournelle-- I believe you have somewhat
mischaracterized Richard Dawkins, and come to some incorrect conclusions
about his position.

The passage you cite says this: "All the leading
intelligent design spokesmen are devout, and, when talking to the faithful,
they drop the science-fiction fig leaf and expose themselves as the
fundamentalist creationists they truly are."

Please note the word "leading". Sir Fred Hoyle was a
respected scientist, but his personal contribution to the current
intelligent design movement is negligible. The "leading" intelligent design
proponents are men such as Michael Behe and William Dembski. These men
participated in the Dover trials where it was found that ID, as promoted to
the schools, really was just rebadged creationism.

Dawkins is also correct in that there are no ID
theories. Being a scientist, he does not use "theory" in the colloquial
sense--a theory requires much more than a falsifiable hypothesis. In fact,
"falsifiable hypothesis" is redundant in science; if it's not falsifiable,
it's not a hypothesis. Instead, a theory is a broad explanation of a
phenomenon, which is backed up by evidence and confirmed predictions.
Successful prediction is perhaps the most important component of a
theory--and historically, it is what has separated the wheat from the chaff
most often. Evolution has tremendous predictive power while ID currently has
none.

Further, you confuse abiogenesis with evolution.
Evolution tells us, to quote Darwin, "the origin of the species". That is,
how we got such a wide variety of life from a single primitive ancestor.
Abiogenesis, however, is far less developed scientifically, and there is not
yet a theory behind it. In fact, Dawkins freely grants that panspermia is
compatible with the evidence. This is not the "intelligent design" he is
talking about here, because it's not the intelligent design that Behe et al
are advocating.

Last, you unfairly place the burden of proof on
evolution proponents. They have a very good theory, supported by literally
mountains of data, which has so far explained everything we've seen so far.
That there are gaps in the theory is irrelevant, because theores are not
selected for explaining 100% of all phenomena--they are selected when they
are the best explanation we currently have. Because there is no alternate
theory (in the scientific sense), scientists are under no obligation to
respond to the never-ending requests to fill "gaps in the fossil record" or
explain "irreducably complex features". When ID proponents can find even a
speck of data supporting their theory, they will start to be taken
seriously.

Thank you for reading,

Scott Cutler

I may have been unclear. On the other hand, you
make a number of assertions.

First, I do not concede that Sir Fred Hoyle's
Evolution from Space has no importance or influence compared to, say, Behe.
It would depend on the audience. As to Behe, I have not read a lot of his
work, because the issue as such isn't as interesting to me as the frantic
efforts used by "science" to suppress even the discussion of the subject.

Second, Sir Fred Hoyle's book was entitled
"Evolution from Space" and does not address the origin of life. Clearly you
either have not read his book, or you have failed to understand its points.
Most certainly Sir Fred has a "theory" under almost any definition you like.
My friend Adrian Berry dismisses the book saying "I think Sir Fred is off
his head, don't you agree?" Adrian has written among other works "Ice
with your Evolution" which looks at evolution and intelligence among other
matters. He insists Sir Fred is wrong; but that is not the same as saying
he's so stupid he doesn't know he doesn't have a theory.

Panspermia is a necessary part of Sir Fred's
theory. It is not sufficient. He speaks of evolution --as anyone would
define it -- from space borne proteins. He lists in his support certain
conditions and facts which he says can be explained only by a combination of
events of such low probability as to be impossible. I am not defending the
truth of what Sir Fred says; I do say he has a coherent theory and God knows
he has the qualifications to present. He may be wrong. Lots of people are.
But should he be suppressed?

Indeed, given how easy it is -- according to
Dawkins and his people -- to refute all critiques of Evolution, it seems to
me an exercise in futility to use the political processes to suppress those
critiques. I would have thought that rational discussion of such issues
rather than discussion of how to suppress the opposition would benefit
science more; but then I have a weakness for rational discussion. While we
cannot present every unpopular non-scientific theory in the schools, I would
think the principle of local control of schools more important than any of
the theories involved. The alternative is to turn to experts with
credentials, and I have not much confidence in that method for seeking
truth.

And again, I don't worry about burden of proof: I
do say that if the evolutionary theories are so easily defended and proved,
then I don't understand why all alternatives are to be suppressed.

==========

Aluminum

Noun 1. bauxite - a clay-like mineral; the chief ore
of aluminum; composed of aluminum oxides and aluminum hydroxides; used as an
abrasive and catalyst The aluminum oxide from the water-engine would just be
another ore, and have to go through the same processing to re-enter the
"stream". So, in effect, the "consumed" aluminum released the energy put
into refining it. It is another energy storage/transport material. If it is
cheap enough in adequate quantities to serve as a fuel, go for it.
Otherwise, not.

Brian

Aluminum refinement is so energy intensive that it
is a maxim: bauxite is taken to the power plant. They don't built power
plants near bauxite sources, nor do they generally string power lines there.

===========

Subject: Pharmacy server acting up again

Jerry,

(1) This is an FYI; I am NOT complaining, because I do
thank you for introducing me to the nasal irrigator.

(2) A thought, since this seems to happen frequently
-- create a new page for the link on your site, so that interested parties
have to click through twice; put a button of your own design on the base
page leading to the order page. That way, when the ad malfunctions, it's on
a page that people are only accessing because they want to click through.
For those of us who occasionally use the ad, it's a win-win -- we access the
product and you get your cash. And there are no inconveniences to anyone who
isn't interested.

Jim

I will have to do that. Alas the banner is on every
past page so if people go back through mail or view they will see it unless
I change all the pages. Aargh.

"And an ill-fated 1992 brush with another religious
sect — which led to the fiery deaths of 21 children at the Branch Davidian
compound near Waco — still lingers on the agency's collective conscience."

In practice this can only mean the State should pre-emptively
seize children because of the danger of the families later being attacked
and killed by State paramilitary forces.

Best Wishes,

Mark

I don't know what they teach in the "parenting
classes" that will be required as a condition of getting the children back.
One hopes they will be a bit more gentle than the political reeducation
classes North Viet Nam imposed after the US handed over our South Viet Nam
allies.

This -MAY- be what victory looks like. It is certainly
not what "quagmire" or "defeat" looks like. If this continues (Deus volent),
the Democrats may have trouble convincing many voters we are losing. They
may find themselves caught between the moderates who want to push a domestic
agenda of "Spend Spend Spend!" and the Howard Dean Fever Swamp Democrats
whose motto seems to be "Just Lose, Baby!"

"Nineteen US soldiers were killed in Iraq in May, the
lowest monthly death toll since the US-led invasion of 2003, the US military
said on Sunday."

Petronius

==========

Taboos

Dear Jerry,

"Questioning the holocaust is one of the near taboos.
Asserting that 9/11 was actually a White House Conspiracy is another.
Questioning Human Caused Global Warming is now a third. The very raising of
such questions causes strong emotions and generates a desire to fight, to
suppress, to silence those who have the sheer nerve to deny the obvious.
Should we simply defer to such strong emotions in the interests of peace?"

I've noticed this also. Some people are trying to
mainstream the phrase "Global Warming Denier". The inspiration for this step
is obvious. The future intent of such people is also clear, at least to me.
"Doctor" Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel is already calling for revoking
the academic credentials of "Global Warming Deniers". This is already done
in France in the case of "Holocaust Denial".

I don't think free speech has any future in a
multi-cultural society that contains strongly organized sub-groups. Muslims
are far from the only organized group inside the political borders of
"America" that display 'strong emotions' on subjects they consider central.
Jews and "Holocaust Denial", blacks and 'discrimination', Zionists and
anything perceived to benefit Israel, illegal immigrants and immigration,
feminists and feminism, homosexuals and homosexuality and 'ecologists' and
ecology all come to mind.

All of these latter groups pioneered the tactics of
using twisted law backed by threats of organized physical disorder to
achieve particularist goals. Their problem is they trampled the flag of free
speech in the mud. And now they complain their own tactics are being applied
against them by a group they don't like? This reaction isn't profound or
idealistic. It's just spoiled and immature.

Are campus administrators denying any restriction on
freedom has occurred in response to Muslim pressure? This is no different
than their previous public denials and private cave-ins to earlier pressure
groups. That part at least hasn't changed.

IF YOU SEND MAIL it may be published; if you want it private
SAY SO AT THE TOP of the
mail. I try to respect confidences, but there is only me, and this is Chaos Manor. If you
want a mail address other than the one from which you sent the mail to appear, PUT THAT AT
THE END OF THE LETTER as a signature. In general, put the name you want at
the end of the letter: if you put no address there none will be posted, but
I do want some kind of name, or explicitly to say (name withheld).

Note
that if you don't put a name in the bottom of the letter I have to get one
from the header. This takes time I don't have, and may end up with a name
and address
you didn't want on the letter. Do us both a favor: sign your letters to me
with the name and address (or no address) as you want them posted. Also,
repeat the subject as the first line of the mail. That also saves me time.

I try to answer mail, but mostly I can't get to all of it. I read it all, although not
always the instant it comes in. I do have books to write too... I am reminded of H.
P. Lovecraft who slowly starved to death while answering fan mail.

If you want to PAY FOR THIS
PLACE I keep the latest information
HERE.
MY
THANKS to all of you who sent money. Some of you went to a lot of
trouble to send money from overseas. Thank you! There are also some new payment methods. I am preparing a special (electronic)
mailing to all those who paid: there will be a couple of these. I have
thought about a subscriber section of the page. LET ME KNOW your thoughts.
.